Entitlement to 40% future prospects and structured assessment of functional disability for quantifying motor accident compensation.

On November 29, 2003, the appellant was traveling in a Rickshaw (Reg. No. GJ-12-U-239) which was struck by a Trailer (Reg. No. GJ-11-U-8553) driving on the wrong side.

The appellant, aged 28 and working as a boiler helper, sustained serious injuries.

He filed MAC Petition No. 154 of 2004.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhuj-Kutch, awarded compensation on November 11, 2019, but reduced the assessed disability from 40% to 20% and did not include future prospects in the income calculation.

The appellant moved the High Court seeking enhancement of the award.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's monthly income and failing to award future prospects.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the disability from 40% (as per medical certificate) to 20% for the purpose of calculating functional disability.

The Court applied the "minimum wages" principle from *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2012) to determine income in the absence of documentary proof.

Regarding future prospects and multipliers, it relied on *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* (2009) and *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (2017), which mandate a 40% addition for individuals under 40 years of age.

Crucially, it applied the principles from *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar* (2011) to distinguish between physical and functional disability, noting that the Tribunal must assess how an injury impacts specific earning capacity rather than mechanically applying clinical disability percentages.

The Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹3,000/- per month just, as it exceeded the prevailing minimum wage of ₹2,300/-.

However, the Court held that a 40% addition for future prospects was legally required given the appellant's age (28 years), increasing the Computable Income to ₹4,200/-.

Regarding disability, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s reduction to 20%.

It reasoned that the testifying doctor (Exh. 44) had not treated the patient, produced a "ready to use" certificate (Exh. 65), and failed to demonstrate how rib and mandible injuries resulted in a 40% loss of functional earning capacity for a boiler helper.

It held that the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of ₹48,960/- specifically under the head of "loss of future income" due to the inclusion of 40% future prospects.

The respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest and proportionate costs within four weeks.